[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <31111909.1213606437203.kamezawa.hiroyu@jp.fujitsu.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jun 2008 17:53:57 +0900 (JST)
From: kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com
To: kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com
Cc: Pavel Emelyanov <xemul@...nvz.org>, kamezawa.hiroyu@...fujitsu.com,
linux-mm@...ck.org, LKML <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
menage@...gle.com, balbir@...ux.vnet.ibm.com,
yamamoto@...inux.co.jp, nishimura@....nes.nec.co.jp,
lizf@...fujitsu.com
Subject: Re: Re: Re: [PATCH 1/6] res_counter: handle limit change
----- Original Message -----
>>> I think when I did all in memcg, someone will comment that "why do that
>>> all in memcg ? please implement generic one to avoid code duplication"
>>
>>Hm... But we're choosing between
>>
>>sys_write->xxx_cgroup_write->res_counter_set_limit->xxx_cgroup_call
>>
>>and
>>
>>sys_write->xxx_cgroup_write->res_counter_set_limit
>> ->xxx_cgroup_call
>>
>>With the sizeof(void *)-bytes difference in res_counter, nNo?
>>
>I can't catch what you mean. What is res_counter_set_limit here ?
>(my patche's ?) and what is sizeof(void *)-bytes ?
>
>Is it so strange to add following algorithm in res_counter?
>==
>set_limit -> fail -> shrink -> set limit -> fail ->shrink
>-> success -> return 0
>==
>I think this is enough generic.
>
This was previous request from Paul. (to hierarchy patch set)
http://marc.info/?l=linux-mm&m=121257010530546&w=2
I think this version meets his request. and I like this.
I don't want to waste more weeks. Then, what is bad ?
removing res_counter_ops is okay ?
Thanks,
-Kame
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
Powered by blists - more mailing lists